Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220719195628.3415852-1-axelrasmussen@google.com>
 <PH7PR11MB6353950F607F7B8F274A3550FD8E9@PH7PR11MB6353.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAJHvVchusMjvhLxYkWpa+iTaHvXYPFHcX7JGP=bW60e_O1jFGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <7EF50BE4-84EA-4D57-B58C-6697F1B74904@vmware.com> <CAJHvVcghaZjgU6YhoGMehQTDU36S-UL5djG+Bym6Uax=VVoX7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <DDE06635-71B4-46B9-9635-97E35E0B5482@vmware.com>
In-Reply-To: <DDE06635-71B4-46B9-9635-97E35E0B5482@vmware.com>
From:   Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Aug 2022 15:50:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJHvVcgR63YNyGYj1Z-XAj5WP631P0DSEK8Mx=f9E=QGJBeRug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] userfaultfd: add /dev/userfaultfd for fine grained
 access control
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc:     "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@intel.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
        Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy <glebfm@altlinux.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        zhangyi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>,
        "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 12:53 PM Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 1, 2022, at 10:13 AM, Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com> wr=
ote:
>
> > =E2=9A=A0 External Email
> >
> > I finished up some other work and got around to writing a v5 today,
> > but I ran into a problem with /proc/[pid]/userfaultfd.
> >
> > Files in /proc/[pid]/* are owned by the user/group which started the
> > process, and they don't support being chmod'ed.
> >
> > For the userfaultfd device, I think we want the following semantics:
> > - For UFFDs created via the device, we want to always allow handling
> > kernel mode faults
> > - For security, the device should be owned by root:root by default, so
> > unprivileged users don't have default access to handle kernel faults
> > - But, the system administrator should be able to chown/chmod it, to
> > grant access to handling kernel faults for this process more widely.
> >
> > It could be made to work like that but I think it would involve at leas=
t:
> >
> > - Special casing userfaultfd in proc_pid_make_inode
> > - Updating setattr/getattr for /proc/[pid] to meaningfully store and
> > then retrieve uid/gid different from the task's, again probably
> > special cased for userfautlfd since we don't want this behavior for
> > other files
> >
> > It seems to me such a change might raise eyebrows among procfs folks.
> > Before I spend the time to write this up, does this seem like
> > something that would obviously be nack'ed?
>
> [ Please avoid top-posting in the future ]

I will remember this. Gmail's default behavior is annoying. :/

>
> I have no interest in making your life harder than it should be. If you
> cannot find a suitable alternative, I will not fight against it.
>
> How about this alternative: how about following KVM usage-model?
>
> IOW: You open /dev/userfaultfd, but this is not the file-descriptor that =
you
> use for most operations. Instead you first issue an ioctl - similarly to
> KVM_CREATE_VM - to get a file-descriptor for your specific process. You t=
hen
> use this new file-descriptor to perform your operations (read/ioctl/etc).
>
> This would make the fact that ioctls/reads from different processes refer=
 to
> different contexts (i.e., file-descriptors) much more natural.
>
> Does it sound better?

Ah, that I think is more or less what my series already proposes, if I
understand you correctly.

The usage is:

fd =3D open(/dev/userfaultfd) /* This FD is only useful for creating new
userfaultfds */
uffd =3D ioctl(fd, USERFAULTFD_IOC_NEW) /* Now you get a real uffd */
close(fd); /* No longer needed now that we have a real uffd */

/* Use uffd to register, COPY, CONTINUE, whatever */

One thing we could do now or in the future is extend
USERFAULTFD_IOC_NEW to take a pid as an argument, to support creating
uffds for remote processes.


And then we get the benefit of permissions for /dev nodes working very
naturally - they default to root, but can be configured by the
sysadmin via chown/chmod, or udev rules, or whatever.